[mike_malone]

 Yesterday we ventured out to one of my hidden gems, Centerton in New Jersey. There are a few large greens there that have small humps and then slopes off to the edge of the green that are too close to allow pins.

   But these areas affect the strategy of approach to the pin even for chipping.

  I sense too much concern with greens being pinnable.

[Rich Goodale]

 

[Ally Mcintosh]

maintenance versus design
maintenance versus design
maintenance versus design

it's a pity they so often don't see eye to eye...

[TEPaul]

"I sense too much concerns with greens being pinnable."


Mayday:

I don't think so, at least not amongst really good architects. Matter of fact, one I consider to be really good was explaining to me the other day the importance of what he called "counter-rolls" on putting greens. Essentially, to work most effectively those counter-rolls are going to be unpinnable green surface!

And furthermore, when those "counter rolls" occur on the peripheries of green space they tend to make recovering from off the green back to certain pins far more challenging and imaginative! 

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

This is a helpful post.

Over time we architects tend to become more "practical" thanks to all the free criticism we've received over the years, and my first thought was that those contours you describe might be just as effective if they were in a chipping area instead of part of the green.  That would save a lot of construction expense if you are importing sand to build the green.

But on second thought, this might not have the desired effect of letting a slightly off-line approach get steered and drawn away from the hole and leaving a difficult chip up over the little contours you describe.

My first course, High Pointe, has a couple of excellent examples of that sort of stuff ... the right side of the 13th green could be as cool as any contouring we've done on 27 courses to date.  But we probably wouldn't do it today, except maybe on a sandy site where greens mix wasn't required.  Or maybe now, we will. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

As the saying goes, "You can't fool Mother Nature."  As Tom says, gca's will get lambasted by supers if they don't provide enough pin space under 3%.  (It may be less - even as green speeds have increased, the USGA has opted not to reduce their recommendations for maximum cuppable green slope.  Some gca's use 1.5 or even 2.25% as the maximum cup area slopes)

Mike Hurdzan covers this in his book quite well - in short, it takes a maximum of 21 days for the 3 foot circle around the cup location to heal.  In prime growing season, or under lower play conditions, it can be less.  So, any green needs at least 14 and up to 21 6' diameter cupping areas at a reasonable slope.

A totally cuppable green, however, would only need to be about 4500 SF, so greens bigger than that can have more non-cuppable areas.

Other practical considerations include construction cost as noted, maintenance costs for non cuppable greens - many even hate the mowed slopes between different elevations on tees - and even environmental costs - some will argue that applying pesticides (still necessary on greens) etc. on non useable assets is not justified in the bigger picture.

Like you, I sure like greens with heavily contoured areas.  Some golfers don't.  When I have used valley of sin type contouring golfers sometimes howl that they "can't practice that recovery shot" and that it is unfair.  I always counter that if I had placed a sand bunker there, no one would complain would they?  I like provididing different type recovery shots via green contours, but some people do like their standard design featurs.

[mike_malone]

 At Rolling Green some complain about the pitch of the slope on the #3 hole., a short slightly down hill par 3. Because of the green speeds we have these days the right side of the green is basically unpinnable (Although we do sometimes try!). We resisted the recommendations of an course consultant years ago to expand the green to gain one pinnable spot.


    I see that slope now as integral to one's tee shot. It needs to be the firmness, speed, and consistency of a green to work for the strategy of trying to hit there and play for the bounce and roll. Your brain naturally adjusts to what kind of bounce and roll to expect from having played the first two holes.


   It can't be pinned but it makes the hole.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike Hurdzan covers this in his book quite well - in short, it takes a maximum of 21 days for the 3 foot circle around the cup location to heal.  In prime growing season, or under lower play conditions, it can be less.  So, any green needs at least 14 and up to 21 6' diameter cupping areas at a reasonable slope.

Jeff,
I've read this same thing for years, but it has not been my experience. Maybe because I've spent more time with bermuda, but even the bent greens I've had didn't take 21 days to heal. Are there any other resources out there (I'm guessing there has to be a foot traffic study done by someone) that we can use to verify Hurdzan's claim?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I ask my supers all the time and they say healing time "all depends" which is why I took my number down to 14.  14 jives more with guys I talk to, and in growing seasons, it could be as low as 6.  Heck, I have read the 21 day rule for tees, but supers say it often takes less than that for them to heal and with greens, its just foot traffic around the hole and not divots.

I imagine it ties to rounds.  If Wolf Point is private, maybe they never need to change the cup at all!  I tihnk the 21 would be based on a 50K rounds course or higher.

What is your experience on Bermuda? Emerald specifically and others if you have experience. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
My experience? It depends
Bermuda is more durable than bent in most cases and although I can't give you a hard fast number like Dr. Mike, I don't see the recovery time he notes. I think a good set-up person knows how to spread the wear around and that's why we see small greens hold up. I think the 21 day number is kind of a golf architecture and management for dummies number. I know cupable space matters, but a few small greens here and there are manageable. I've found both mini verde and emerald to be very tolerant of foot traffic. Of course the most rounds I've ever had is 40K.

At WP we don't even cut a cup, we're purists here and we let the rabbits move the holes around

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

Regarding your post #6 and what you say in it----I agree but on the other side of the equation I'm sure you can see the problems involved today with running low on pinnable areas and why that were not exactly contemplated by the architects back then who designed these greens. I doubt Flynn was contemplating greenspeeds of 12 back then. I doubt he even considered such a possibility. Had he considered them seriously he may've done things a bit differently! 

[Dave_Miller]

Yesterday we ventured out to one of my hidden gems, Centerton in New Jersey. There are a few large greens there that have small humps and then slopes off to the edge of the green that are too close to allow pins.

   But these areas affect the strategy of approach to the pin even for chipping.

  I sense too much concern with greens being pinnable.

Mayday:
Pinnable??? Pins??? Are they golf at Rolling Green???
How about hole locations.
Pins, Pinnable.   My, my,my
Dave

[JESII]

If we could live with the hole being changed three times a week (Wednesday, Friday and Sunday mornings) instead of the projected 7 we could have a whole lot less pinnable space...or maybe more unpinnable sounds better...

[TEPaul]

DaveM:

I think he should change the title of this thread to:

"RE: Show some love for parts of the green that aren't hole locationable."  


On the other hand, you may not know Mayday as well as I do. He has a fairly unique way of dealing with differences of opinions from his. His natural inclination is to not consider those differences and discuss them, at least not at first; his natural inclination seems to be to first come to your party, for instance, with a 5 iron and smack you in the head with it and then consider and discuss your difference of opinion later, if at all!

[mike_malone]

 TEPaul,

   I use different ways to try to convince different people. I was trying to be nice to you. My 5 iron is not the best club in my bag.

[Charlie Goerges]

Yesterday we ventured out to one of my hidden gems, Centerton in New Jersey. There are a few large greens there that have small humps and then slopes off to the edge of the green that are too close to allow pins.

   But these areas affect the strategy of approach to the pin even for chipping.

  I sense too much concern with greens being pinnable.

Mayday:
Pinnable??? Pins??? Are they golf at Rolling Green???
How about hole locations.
Pins, Pinnable.   My, my,my
Dave

I know I prefer lots of hole-locationable areas on greens. 

Edit: Now I feel dumb seeing that the estimable Mr. Paul has already been there and gone. 

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

I've my (bentgrass) greens divided into nine sections, so my rotation is at worst nine days but if we're not busy I'll stretch changing it for another day or so. I haven't had any issues but play is a factor (fortunately we're not a factory).

Cuppable areas are directly related to greenspeed, we love pushing them to the limit over the winter, the members like it...

I think good architects keep it in the back of their minds (to save themselves from us supers ) but ultimately will do what they need to for drainage and playability.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yesterday we ventured out to one of my hidden gems, Centerton in New Jersey. There are a few large greens there that have small humps and then slopes off to the edge of the green that are too close to allow pins.

But these areas affect the strategy of approach to the pin even for chipping.

I sense too much concern with greens being pinnable.

Mayday,

This is or could be a great topic.

Hole location, the loss of hole locations and the recapturing or acquisition of hole locations can be a great topic.

All too often, GREAT hole locations are dismissed by a club because they're deemed too difficult.

I'm not talking about crazy hole locations or locations where green speeds make them unrealistic, I'm talking about hole locations that are difficult to get to, but, which can be managed by intelligent play.  (note: TEPaul is exempted from this conversation)

The risk/reward associated with dicey hole locations has been eliminated by complaints from those golfers who want everything handed to them, without having to think or execute properly.

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

All too often, GREAT hole locations are dismissed by a club because they're deemed too difficult.

I'm not talking about crazy hole locations or locations where green speeds make them unrealistic, I'm talking about hole locations that are difficult to get to, but, which can be managed by intelligent play.  [/b]

I'd agree with that, a lot of people will blame anything really (hole locations, course design, maintenance) for their bad round. Keeping the holes 'easy' saves getting unnecessary complaints.

[Kyle Harris]

A great advantage of recapturing areas of a green that aren't necessarily suited for a hole location is that areas that are otherwise too close to the edge of the green now become suited for a hole location.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I use different ways to try to convince different people. I was trying to be nice to you. My 5 iron is not the best club in my bag."


Yes Sir, Mayday, I'm well aware of the ways you try to convince people. You may not suspect it but I'm actually on your side to some degree (which you may never realize and which I may not want you to realize) but when you have an hour to spare come on over here and I will explain to you some of the effectiveness of something known as "the Theory of Contrary Opinion."

In other words, with your track record of disagreement and your modus operandi of disagreement on certain things to do with architecture and Rolling Green if you actually agree (as a ploy of course) with people you've so vociferously disagreed with in the past (and actually do disagree with presently), you may find that they will change their tune just to continue to disagree with you, BUT VIOLA, you will find you have gotten exactly what you were wanting in the first place.

I know of what I speak. I have done this a few times to a person or two in a single meeting and they never even realized what had transpired (via the magical "Theory of Contrary Opinion").




Now, Mayday, this is a useful technique but I do not propose it with a total guarantee of effectiveness. I have run into some who do not fall for something of this nature and that is why I generally pack my .45 caliber pistol in my shoulder holster underneath my suit jacket. It has not been often I've had to make it known it's there or even put it on the table but that has happened in the past.

There was even an incident in what I will only describe with specificity as the southern region where someone actually called my bluff. I was sorry to see that happen but he is no more and I felt it prudent to resign from not just the club but the entire region.

I actually have a good deal of respect for your style and technique, Mayday; the fact that you pass yourself off as a peaceful Quaker is a nice touch. It's deceptive but never mind that---I still consider it a nice touch! 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()